> Keith, if you still didn't understood my message, let me elaborate.
> 1. All your ideas/arguments about techical issues is highly rational.
> 2. But instead of using power of arguments, and looking for
> compomise

1)

I proposed a workable compromise immediately after Andreas' original  
email, it was ignored!!!!

2)

There is no compromise, you aren't providing me with a workable  
solution. I can't use trunk, the trunk process is not managing  
anything of interest or use to me or my client because I was providing  
tools.

a) tools that trunk cant load and
b) and tools that are managed outside of trunk,

Since anything outside of trunk is ignored as a possible solution,  
because you still have your monolithic blinkers on, and the board is  
still driven by the idea that  "oh my goodness Pharo has a new image  
and we dont".

You are forgetting that in Bob you have a viable "extreme programming  
style continuous integration development platform", when in Pharo they  
don't, but Bob is ONLY viable IF YOU USE IT.

When you have a project manager whose goal is to produce an image with  
fancy fonts (lol), rather than a "comprehensive extreme programming  
capable development platform", you are going to produce conflicting  
strategies.

You are all so wrapped up in hacking trunk, you aren't the slightest  
bit interested in moving forward on the tools. Sure Andreas wants a  
package manager, on his terms only though. I cant port my production  
images to trunk easily, and when 3.11 is released, I could spend 2/3  
months porting my stuff, but since you lot wouldn't even do me the  
courtesy of starting with 3.10-build, you make it harder for me. You  
are also probably going to pick a different package management system  
so all my current package definitions will have to be redone from  
scratch, any work I do or have done on tools has been discarded by you  
lot.

I rejoined squeak-dev and started the fight again, because I suddenly  
realised that you had actually left me in a position where I had no  
way forward at all, I had thought I could move to pharo, until I  
actually tried their image, ugh, what a disaster (OmniBrowser) and  
guess what, all my package definitions will have to be redone from  
scratch.

Anyhow in six months time the client is going to say, "what shall we  
do next" and I will end up saying, why don't you get someone else to  
do it in python or whatever you like, because squeak is not a viable  
platform any more, nor is pharo.

The viability of the platform is entirely bound up in the politics,  
and the ability of the community to collaborate and share stuff more  
than the technical side of things. Witnessing one individual overrule  
that the way forward is a hacking away unplanned process, to produce  
an incompatible image, without any tools being provided for us to use  
in our work, is damaging for the viability of squeak as a professional  
development platform. Then it appears that there isn't the will in the  
community to develop, provide, support  and USE the tools we need to  
do a professional tested job.

The current focus of the community as endorsed by the board is on  
hacking at trunk which is an irrelevant task as far as we are  
concerned since our starting image is basically arbitrary because we  
use an automated build, 3.8 works fine for us. Cuis is an attractive  
target as anything because it is small and fast. (but it has no tools  
yet!)

However now that the "release-team" is hacking at trunk, rather than  
providing a working process and tools which we could adopt in-house to  
do a good professional job for our clients. Squeak ceases to be an  
interesting platform because it hasn't got any continuous integration  
tools, it has no vision for such tools, and those it has got have just  
been discarded by the community without a second thought.

Now if I continue to develop these tools for my use only, while you  
are all hell bent on building trunk and doing everything is exactly  
the opposite way that is of any actual use, using either no tools or  
other tools that are not compatible with my tools. I will not and  
cannot compete, you win, and my client will end up back with python  
where they started.

Juan has it right, his vision is to produce "the best kernel he can",  
but not on any account to interfere with the users of the kernel and  
what they might want to do with it. This frees me up to implement "a  
grand vision", without having it trashed at a moments notice, by  
someone else coming along with a lesser vision.

My client chose squeak because of the potential and the open  
collaborative dynamics of the community that they saw on irc that were  
interested in tools, and extreme programming approaches, particularly  
release often, and test always. If I use BOB to build and regression  
test my code it only makes sense if the seaside team also uses Bob to  
build and regression test their code and the same goes for magma etc  
etc.

Those dynamics and collaborative dynamics have now gone, as has the  
interest in tools and its a case of what Andreas says goes, and what  
Andreas says is we are going to produce a 3.11 image come hell or high  
water without tools, without regression testing and without a rapid  
release cycle integrating carefully planned and proven projects which  
are separately published. Neither the squeak board or the trunk  
developers are doing anything to make squeak a first class development  
platform that is developed daily using continuous integration and  
extreme programming tools and techniques.

There is this new 3.11 image promised down the line, but its not  
developed with our needs in mind, it isn't developed with the tools we  
want to use, it isn't tested against the packages we want to use yet,  
and uncle Tom Cobbly (anyone) can change an API at the drop of a hat.  
Oh and it will be a year until the subsequent release.

3)

The board is not providing a compromise basis either, since it refuses  
to provide "terms of reference".

> s, you choosen to fight with everyone,

I am only virtually fighting against the impossible situation you have  
put me in, and the complete lack of thinking going on here. To be  
clear once more, I can build an production image on any base image, so  
the trunk image itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is the process  
by which the 3.11 image is developed on an ongoing basis, and the bug  
fixes that are published against individual releases. If I choose 3.11  
as the basis for a project I want to know that bug fixes will be  
provided for THAT image, not for trunk2, the client wants to know that  
bug fixes are available for an image that has a bug found in it, not  
an image that we have to wait 18 months for.

I am also fighting against those who don't bother communicating. For  
example Craig where are you, you are as responsible for this mess as  
anyone else. Andreas nor the board didn't email me for 2 months to ask  
for a progress update. You will see I mellow somewhat as people who  
enter into a conversation with me, I mellow. Elliot talks sense, and  
Josh too.

But no matter how much sense they make, no  compromise is being  
offered, because you still see the future of squeak as an image  
release, and I see it as a development platform and series of  
processes that need tools (which don't care about the image). While  
the board puts the power into Andreas' hands to dictate the future of  
squeak, there is no future of squeak the development platform, there  
is only a 3.11 image, big deal.

> defending your position, up to the point, that it is not really
> matters, who is right or wrong , and in what they right or wrong.
> You just subbornly keep fueling a conflict, which nobody, except you
> want to have.

While you continue to use the argument "the end justifies the means"  
you are picking the fight. Just because no one stands up to you,  
doesn't mean it is an acceptable  attitude to have. The fact that "the  
end" in this case is to divert valuable resources into an minimally  
relevant hole called "trunk".

Plot the number of users of images derived from 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and  
3.10 see how it falls. 3.8 still has the most users, 3.11 will have  
about 20 users max by the time you have finished.

Like I said "Terms of Reference" are important, but a new image  
developed without tools is not.

The deliverable of squeak, is a published image, AND a toolset for  
building and deriving distribution images, AND up to date package  
definitions for all packages, AND a Bug Tracker that is used to  
publish Bug fixes against said published image.

You are right I don't expect any compromise to be possible. Andreas  
has it nailed up so there isn't any possible. But at least this way  
people might actually think...

cheers

Keith


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100122/691b5b40/attachment.htm